Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prakash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 February, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 12219 of 2022
(PRAKASH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 09-02-2024
Shri Ashish Gupta - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri K. K. Tiwari - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State stated that the
verification report has been received form concerning Police Station and as per
verification report, the appellant has not solemnized marriage with the
prosecutrix and the prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with another person.
Heard on I.A. No.139/2024, which is fourth application for suspension
of sentence and grant of bail filed under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C filed on
behalf of the Appellant - Prakash.
The first, second and third applications were dismissed vide order dated
23.03.2023, 24.11.2023 and was allowed temporarily on 01.12.2023
respectively.
The Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Sections 376(3) and
366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 20 years R.I and 10 years R.I with fine of
Rs.1,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively with default stipulations, vide judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.12.2022 passed by Special Judge,
POCSO Act, Ratlam in S.C. No.205/2019.
As per prosecution case, at the time of the incident, the prosecutrix was
minor, aged below 16 years. The appellant gave false pretext to marry the
prosecutrix. On 09.04.2019, he took her to Surat, Gujarat, but there he did not
solemnized marriage with her. He kept her as his wife for 07 months.
Meanwhile, he committed rape upon her several times. Therefore, the
prosecutrix got pregnant. After that, the appellant took her at his home and
Police had recovered the prosecutrix from possession of the appellant on
13.11.2019.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has not
committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in the case. The
prosecutrix (PW-1) has admitted in her deposition that she had voluntarily went
with the appellant. Therefore, it is clear that she was a consenting party for
sexual intercourse.
It is further submitted that from the wedlock of appellant and prosecutrix,
a minor child has been born, but is living with mother of the appellant. No one
is available for looking after the minor child. It is submitted that the appellant
served incarceration of around 04 years. Final hearing of this appeal is not
possible in near future since the appeal is of the year 2022, therefore, it is
prayed that the remaining sentence may be suspended and the appellant may be
released on bail.
Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has opposed
the prayer for suspension of sentence and submitted that the prosecutrix has
supported the case of prosecution in her statement. Her statement is also
supported by DNA report. The prosecutrix was below 16 years of age,
therefore her consent is immaterial. Hence, the application for suspension
deserves to be dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
record.
Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that at this stage, no
case is made out for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant and grant him
bail. Accordingly, I.A. No.139/2024 is rejected.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Shruti
